Restricting Postponement of Threads Because of Calculation Issues

[KingTempest]

What logical sense does waiting for a CRT to be posted to finally have an issue with a calculation make?
For no reason, a calculation can exist for weeks to months at a time, and the moment we have a CRT, there's a random new issue with a calculation.

I won't link any CRTs because that isn't the business of most people here, but it happens a lot and it's irritating and useless as hell.
But if you want me to, I gladly will. I know a verse with like 6 different showings of this in the past year alone.
Holding back revisions because you don't like a calculation isn't a reason to pause the work of a handful of people.

A calculation is made, people never speak in the calculation's comments, calculation marinates for like a month, nobody speaks, heck sometimes they won't even evaluate it when it desperately needs an evaluation for weeks on end, then it gets evaluated and accepted, and then when a CRT is formed, "I have a problem with the calculation", holds off thread for a month, calculation group thread wastes time and never concludes, necro thread.
Shit, sometimes people have issues with calculations when a big thread is about to close. 7 pages of arguing bickering and scaling, and then out of nowhere "I have an issue".

Let's not lie and say it doesn't happen. It happens all the time. I open random CRTs in the CR forums and I see a thread being held off because a calc that's older than some members here has a random problem.

I've had my own threads shut down because they were getting too long (3 days), but this shit happens all over the wiki and nothing happens.

There seriously needs to be a rule against people postponing threads because of their personal issues with calcs.

I don't care at all how it's worded. If you want a grace period after a calculation is formed to form an issue with it, go ahead. If you want no discussion about calculations in CRTs, go ahead (I'd be perfectly fine with that). But it isn't fair to the CRT planners and the supporters/opponents who've spoken, planned, debated, argued, and worked for days on end just for their conversations to be shat on last minute with a "I don't like the way you rounded off this decimal".


Edit: Regular Members are allowed to speak if they have valid input. I don't want FRA trains or bashing or random agreeals to fill this thread up.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

1,000,000% agree with this. Not only does it feel like a slap in the face to those that completely redo scaling for specific feat, but it's also a dick move to bring an issue up at the last second when there has been ample tike to voice your concerns prior.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

100% agree with this

It is super annoying when one person having issues can delay an entire thread for days to weeks at a time

Like if you don't have an immediate complaint and post said complaint, then you can't stall a thread till you formulate one

 

[Arcker123]

I agree with this. When people do this, it feels more like stalling threads than actual serious objections to Calcs.

 

[Antvasima]

Our calc group has recently been talking in private with us bureaucrats about that the members who post calculations always need to properly describe the premises/circumstances for them, to make it easier to quickly evaluate whether or not they seem reliable, and that our calc group members should ask each other for input if they are uncertain regarding whether or not the relevant math is reliable. I am not sure how that would affect the issue that you mention.

Anyway, how would you suggest that we solve this problem, and should I call for the rest of our staff to participate here?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

You already know what I think about this kind of behavior. It's completely uncalled for.

Calculations that have been approved and not seen any sort of problem by the very people who the Wiki trusts as authority on calculations - the CGMs - are a complete separate subject from the content revision at all. The CRT's only purpose is to argue if the new values fit in the particular scaling being proposed, argue outliers, or who scales to X, Y, Z. The calc's been approved by the Wiki's entrusted CGMs already.

If the calculation has a problem, or a nitpick (most of the times they are nitpicks with the method, "Can't we find a better one?", even though it is entirely valid on its own), then a separate thread in the CGD should be made, totally unrelated to the CRT. Of course, if the calculation has deemed invalid in this CGDT, then another CRT should be made to change this value from the profiles.

Treat them as separate, do NOT intertwine them. It is not that hard.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I actually agree with this as I've seen it happen time and time again, and have suffered from it myself at times.

A thread could be up for days, or even weeks, and when it is finally reaching a conclusion after countless arguments and rebuttals, a random issue with a calc gets brought up and sets us back to square one; in some cases, the revision in its entirety dies because of this and gets held back for months until suitable replacements are found. As many of you know, this has happened several times for a verse I'm attached to, and we've been revising it for 3+ years at this point. Of course, this isn't the only reason to be honest, but it was a major contributor. And it's just..........annoying as hell, honestly.

Issues with calcs should be voiced and handled during the evaluation process, or in a CGM thread, NOT when a revision is about to go through.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Obviously if an approved calculation is mandatory for a content revision, it is strongly preferred if the calculation is correct. But it's extremely common for a lot of newer or lesser known/not too active regular users knit pick calculations in every detail and either push for practices that either intentionally lowball or intentionally highball a calculation to the point of extremes on either ends.

I basically think that instead of either making a lengthy post-pone or rushed pace, it should just be we have a multiple calc group members discuss it on the content revision and basically treat calc groups as having more mod/adminship rights of approving the calc based content revision.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I personally see no harm in this. Say you have two calcs one at X one at Y, X is currently accepted but it might change to Y. There’s no harm in proceeding with a scaling based CRT based on X, and then whenever/if ever X changes to Y, it’ll be simple to just update the profiles. Calcs don’t really restrict scaling.

I’ve been ever so slowly working on sandboxing Bleach multipliers to revise them which would change their tiers, but I don’t let that stop people from updating scaling or bringing in new calcs. I just proceed to update the profiles with what’s currently accepted, with the knowledge that down the road it’ll probably change. Same deal with the calcs, CGM are real people, they get busy, that’s ok. Whenever they get around to calcing stuff is when it happens and that’s perfectly fine. The wiki ain’t going anywhere, there’s no real reason to postpone scaling CRTs for a calc. In fact when the calc member finished the calc, it’ll be even easier to apply it because all the scaling and other jazz will be worked out.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Damage3245]

I know this is addressed towards me. I already said on the CRT to go ahead with it if you want, but I thought it would be even more annoying if I brought up issues after the changes were already applied.

 

[KingTempest]

Our calc group has recently been talking in private with us bureaucrats about that the members who post calculations always need to properly describe the premises/circumstances for them, to make it easier to quickly evaluate whether or not they seem reliable, and that our calc group members should ask each other for input if they are uncertain regarding whether or not the relevant math is reliable. I am not sure how that would affect the issue that you mention.

This is different. This is just making the calculations easier to evaluate. Even when CGMs lack understanding on said calc, they voice their concerns and that can be rectified.

The main issue is that already evaluated calculations can sit there and marinate for a long period of time, and when it's time for there to be a revision that involves the calculation, there's an issue.

Anyway, how would you suggest that we solve this problem,

I have no idea. I said some examples in the OP but it's not solely up to me.

and should I call for the rest of our staff to participate here?

Please do

 

[HammerStrikes219]

While I am neutral overall on this topic, I have see many times when it gets postponed due to certain issues with the calculations that should been address on the calcs itself.

If the calc member or even a regular member with in depth knowledge of science and mathematics have a in-depth response regarding any issues with a calc that should been addressed on a calc blog or a thread regarding those specific issues.

We ain’t here just to get postpone a CRT on the last minute just to address that issue.

If you got concerns about the mathematical equations and/or the premises/context of a calculation or more so, it is for the best bring it up on a different thread or if the CRT is still ongoing and isn’t accepted in its fullest. (Ie. should been addressed while the CRT isn’t finished).

 

[The_Impress]

..I mean if it's not relevant to the thread it's just basic derailment, ask them to make their own thread, but if there IS an issue with the calc that's only apparent by the time the thread is made, and is relevant, it doesn't matter if it's annoying, it needs addressing.

Any rules suggested is needless bureaucracy, we don't need more shit to dismiss arguments.

 

[Damage3245]

The main issue is that already evaluated calculations can sit there and marinate for a long period of time, and when it's time for there to be a revision that involves the calculation, there's an issue.

I'll just point out that the times when revisions happen often end up being the time when calcs come under the heaviest scrutiny in my experience. A calc could be made months ago but it won't occupy my attention until it comes up in a thread and is being discussed and it becomes important to double-check it. I don't think people are noticing potential flaws then just sleeping on them until they can spring it out.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Confluctor @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @The_Impress @Maverick_Zero_X @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @The_Divine_Phoenix @ZackMoon1234 @MistaClean @MonkeyOfLife @FinePoint

Do any of you have constructive suggestions for practical solutions to this issue? Please take into account that we need to make an effort to be polite and respectful as usual, even though it may be a controversial issue.

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

I agree, if the issue with a CRT is that the current statistics are incorrect and there isn't a calc to replace them, the CRT can aim for Unknown for the time being, rather than waiting for a calc that may never happen

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Do any of you have constructive suggestions for practical solutions to this issue? P

The only thing I can think is if the calc should been reviewed by other calc members prior to the calc being publicly published on a blog and could been under scrutiny in case there is any faults in the calc itself.

It won’t been mandatory though since not everyone will been willing to consult a calc group member all the time due to their limited free time.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with OP. This doesn't just happen to calc threads, but also regular CRTs where everything has been accepted by everyone with the proper reasoning and then someone comes in months later right when the CRT is about to end, only to ******* stonewall it with reasons that make no sense to begin with.

If you had concerns from the beginning, be present from the start of the thread, you might have obligations in the real world, true, but even then doing this several months later at a time or even years at a time when you have more than enough to finish everything else is just unacceptable if your arguments have no basis to begin with.

 

[ByAsura]

I agree it’s unacceptable, especially because I do this all the time.

 

[KLOL506]

I agree with OP. This doesn't just happen to calc threads, but also regular CRTs where everything has been accepted by everyone with the proper reasoning and then someone comes in months later right when the CRT is about to end, only to ******* stonewall it with reasons that make no sense to begin with.

If you had concerns from the beginning, be present from the start of the thread, you might have obligations in the real world, true, but even then doing this several months later at a time or even years at a time when you have more than enough to finish everything else is just unacceptable if your arguments have no basis to begin with.

Not only that, I have seen people bring up issues against standards that we went through hell and back to establish and even make rules for and then concluded the CRTs by closing them afterwards, and still people bring up new threads about it without reading everything about why it is what it is and why it will stay the way it is, and even when given the links, they refuse to look.

 

[KingTempest]

..I mean if it's not relevant to the thread it's just basic derailment, ask them to make their own thread, but if there IS an issue with the calc that's only apparent by the time the thread is made, and is relevant, it doesn't matter if it's annoying, it needs addressing.

Any rules suggested is needless bureaucracy, we don't need more shit to dismiss arguments.

The calculation requiring addressing isn't an issue.
The calculation requiring addressing and pausing a thread to discuss said issue when

• It is a personal issue
• It isn't a blatant issue
• It's being brought up by the time a thread is about to end
• You don't even list the problem, you just say "I don't like it, wait for me to make a thread"

is the issue.

 

[KLOL506]

• You don't even list the problem, you just say "I don't like it, wait for me to make a thread"

Especially this, if you have any issues, finish it within that thread and that thread alone. People will respond to criticism if you ask them nicely and and they will debate with you whether or not the concerns are sound or not.

 

[Damage3245]

Especially this, if you have any issues, finish it within that thread and that thread alone. People will respond to criticism if you ask them nicely and and they will debate with you whether or not the concerns are sound or not.

That's fair. My thought process was that a Calc thread would be more focused and it wouldn't interrupt people who wanted to discuss other topics on the original thread.

 

[The_Impress]

The calculation requiring addressing and pausing a thread to discuss said issue when

• It is a personal issue
• It isn't a blatant issue
• It's being brought up by the time a thread is about to end
• You don't even list the problem, you just say "I don't like it, wait for me to make a thread"

is the issue.

Then it's just derailment, don't have the thread paused. No need for a rule.

 

[KLOL506]

Then it's just derailment, don't have the thread paused. No need for a rule.

Then it should be added under the list of actions that can potentially qualify as derailment and eventually as grounds for reporting if done too many times.

Do we have a list of actions that qualify as derailment?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

“As stated above, please remember to stay on topic in serious discussion threads. This means keeping posts relevant to the topic of the threads, and being respectful of requests made in the Original Posts of them (for example: "staff only"). Spamming irrelevant posts (even without ill intent) is distracting and can cause disorder, and thus it is requested that this is kept to a minimum. This rule does not extend to non-serious threads (such as those in the Fun and Games forum). Failure to respect the purpose of discussions and excessively bombarding or derailing them despite multiple warnings may result in a block.”

Site Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...

vsbattles.fandom.com

This is the one I believe, but doesn’t explicitly mention the lists of what does specifically counted as derailment.

 

[KLOL506]

“As stated above, please remember to stay on topic in serious discussion threads. This means keeping posts relevant to the topic of the threads, and being respectful of requests made in the Original Posts of them (for example: "staff only"). Spamming irrelevant posts (even without ill intent) is distracting and can cause disorder, and thus it is requested that this is kept to a minimum. This rule does not extend to non-serious threads (such as those in the Fun and Games forum). Failure to respect the purpose of discussions and excessively bombarding or derailing them despite multiple warnings may result in a block.”

Site Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...

vsbattles.fandom.com

This is the one I believe, but doesn’t explicitly mention the lists of what does specifically counted as derailment.

Then it needs heavy revamping to include the above. Especially with regards to stonewalling like this and stonewalling in general.

 

[FinePoint]

If a CRT's entire basis is a calc, then issues with that calc need to be addressed, but calc members should just address it right there, rather than postpone the thread. If there is a clear issue they can fix, then they should fix it. A vague "I have problems but I will talk about them later" should not pause a CRT about an already accepted calc. If they think they can fix it within 24hrs I think that should be fine to wait for, but that should be clear. Worst-case scenario they make another thread afterwards to fix it.

If the CRT contains many things, and a calc is just one aspect to the scaling, then it should be fine to apply and be fixed later since changing the numbers in the scaling chain should be relatively easy. The easy solution is to evaluate calcs properly the first time, but given that's not always possible, it should be fine to allow CRTs to go through until actual specific changes are requested or they go ahead and recalc the feat.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Then it needs heavy revamping to include the above. Especially with regards to stonewalling like this and stonewalling in general.

To being fair, stonewalling (while it is indeed quite annoying) isn’t necessarily have to been off topic and could been on topic as well.

 

[KLOL506]

To being fair, stonewalling (while it is indeed quite annoying) isn’t necessarily have to been off topic and could been on topic as well.

True, but that rarely happens at times, if ever, and most often at times even if they are on topic they seem to completely override the assumptions that the thread was going on and go against basic logic at times, and I've seen some really atrocious examples as of late, some being repeat offenders.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

True, but that rarely happens at times, if ever, and most often at times even if they are on topic they seem to completely override the assumptions that the thread was going on and go against basic logic at times, and I've seen some really atrocious examples as of late, some being repeat offenders.

It is a unfortunate thing to have, but I don’t think we have necessarily include stonewalling in general. Only mention it if the stonewalling is specifically in relation to not being related to the main topic or if there is more topic that is related to the main focus or so.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I'll just point out that the times when revisions happen often end up being the time when calcs come under the heaviest scrutiny in my experience.

As annoying as this is, I agree with this point. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t take advantage of this fact when I felt it was taking too long for my calcs to get evaluated. I don’t think the fault here really lies with anyone, a lot of blogs exist on this site, it’s hard to catch them all. Imo the solution would be to evaluate calcs like this: get a first pass within the blog, then make a calc discussion thread to get a final pass on the calc. As it is a lot easier to spot calc group threads than blogs. But I understand that may not be the most realistic solution. Especially since everyone’s schedules aren’t guaranteed to line up. Which is why I’m in support of just taking a lax approach. CRTs are made, if calcs are questionable in the eyes of some but they can’t address it at the moment then a calc thread can be made down the line. Although obviously if a calc is glaringly or obviously wrong that’s a separate scenario, but for the cases relevant to the discussion here this seems to occur more often in a grey area. Exercising patience is always good, but indefinitely postponing things doesn’t have to be the extreme of patience, stuff can always be revisited. My apologies if I retreaded already discussed topics, this comment just stuck in my mind, considering I share the same sentiment as damage regarding it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Tbh as annoying as this may be, I think I would rather have this issue than the alternative.

Problems with priorly accepted things are noticed all the time so it would not be feasible to forbid corrections to be made later on. And, mind you, applying the CRT to then have the correction made right after and reverting everything is even more wasted effort and additionally means deliberately listing false information in the meantime.
Additionally, calc blogs are somewhat more hidden than CRTs so it is quite natural that things are only noticed when the CRT is made.
We also just had a debate with calc group members in which multiple ones expressed that in their opinion several kinds of assumptions in calcs should in fact be debated in CRTs instead of them having to evaluate them for verses they don't have greater context on. That calcs will get further debate in CRTs is the natural consequence of that practice.

Generally, we are not in a big hurry to apply CRTs. If a thread is postponed for a week or something and no argument is made, sure. Just apply it and say that the party that has not yet made an argument can do so in a new thread to revert the change. But giving people an acceptable amount of time to make their argument from when they discovered the thread seems reasonable and important. A few days shouldn't be a problem, especially for major changes.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Tbh as annoying as this may be, I think I would rather have this issue than the alternative.

Problems with priorly accepted things are noticed all the time so it would not be feasible to forbid corrections to be made later on. And, mind you, applying the CRT to then have the correction made right after and reverting everything is even more wasted effort and additionally means deliberately listing false information in the meantime.
Additionally, calc blogs are somewhat more hidden than CRTs so it is quite natural that things are only noticed when the CRT is made.
We also just had a debate with calc group members in which multiple ones expressed that in their opinion several kinds of assumptions in calcs should in fact be debated in CRTs instead of them having to evaluate them for verses they don't have greater context on. That calcs will get further debate in CRTs is the natural consequence of that practice.

Generally, we are not in a big hurry to apply CRTs. If a thread is postponed for a week or something and no argument is made, sure. Just apply it and say that the party that has not yet made an argument can do so in a new thread to revert the change. But giving people an acceptable amount of time to make their argument from when they discovered the thread seems reasonable and important. A few days shouldn't be a problem, especially for major changes.

The issue is that it isn’t a few days, I’ve consistently seen CRT’s dragged out for months because of this issue

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk makes sense to me above, but as Mitch said, months is definitely not a reasonable amount of postponement for a thread in these types of situations.

 

[Damage3245]

DontTalk makes sense to me above, but as Mitch said, months is definitely not a reasonable amount of postponement for a thread.

I agree.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The issue is that it isn’t a few days, I’ve consistently seen CRT’s dragged out for months because of this issue

While this is true, I do find that aside from this single issue alone, I mostly do think arguments and lack of interest in coming to finishing a CRT is what can kill a CRT. Plus as mentioned above, not everyone have free time to finish on making the final conclusions on a thread (especially if it isn’t concluded completely).

 

[KLOL506]

While this is true, I do find that aside from this single issue, I mostly do think arguments and lack of interest in coming to finishing a CRT is what can kill a CRT. Plus as mentioned above, not everyone have free time to finish on making the final conclusions on a thread (especially if it isn’t concluded completely).

I get that people don't have the free time to finish but that doesn't give you the right to derail such a revision months later like this only to make another one and disregard the original thread completely. It's one thing to add to the relevant topic at hand within the same CRT, but to make another CRT instead of finishing it in the original after delaying for so long only to have the contents of the new CRT make no sense down the line at all is just disingenuous even for those that have free time.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The issue is that it isn’t a few days, I’ve consistently seen CRT’s dragged out for months because of this issue

Yeah, sure, as I said in my post if over a week no arguments are made at all (and it has otherwise been sufficiently accepted of course), just apply it for the time being. Then it can be downgraded later if necessary.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I get that people don't have the free time to finish but that doesn't give you the right to derail such a revision months later like this only to make another one and disregard the original thread completely. It's one thing to add to the relevant topic at hand within the same CRT, but to make another CRT instead of finishing it in the original after delaying for so long only to have the contents of the new CRT make no sense down the line at all is just disingenuous even for those that have free time.

This is fair as I was mostly thinking on what other factors that will dragged on a CRT aside from calc issues. Apologies on the wording since I am also at a public place with pools and so on.

Anyway, I don’t think this should been a extremely strict ruling regarding this particular issue.
However, in this case, if it is just issues with some calcs, I do not think it will disregard the original thread entirely and is likely just a separate thing from what was agreed upon in the thread.